Japan F-18 Super Super Hornet?

[fretburner]

I agree, the F-35 is the US government's preferred platform for the Japanese. Its also been reported that to sweeten the deal, LM is open to the idea of setting up a final assembly line in Japan. One can also envision some subcontracting work being allocated to Japanese firms. Perhaps Japan could also be a future regional support hub for countries like Singapore, Australia and possibly South Korea.

I don't buy this final assembly line in Japan thingy. How would partner nations react to that? Subcontracting maybe, but assembly line? I just don't see that happening.

 

[colay]

Can we put the F-35 discussion to bed, please? Japan would be far back in the production queue, and it can't wait to replace the F-4s.

It's a straight fight between the Super Hornet and Typhoon. And of course I would say that the Typhoon should win.

Please reconcile your opinion with the fact that the US Government has submitted a formal F-35 proposal in response to the Japan's RFP. Surely if the F-35 was not going to meet the requirements, why submit a proposal at all? Its likelyproductionhas been rescheduled to accommodate any Japanese order, specially in light of partner countries deferring production of units for their own air forces.

 

[colay]

I don't buy this final assembly line in Japan thingy. How would partner nations react to that? Subcontracting maybe, but assembly line? I just don't see that happening.

LM seems very transparent about its intentions. Presumably all partners are in the loop and have signed off on the move. Also, its an assembly line for components and modules manufactured elsewhere so it looks like any revenues lost would be coming out of LM's slice of the pie.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/avi-wire-news-display/1446128337.html

 

[SpudmanWP]

There are plenty of spots open on the production line since the US slowed down it's pre-FRP timetable. A couple of years ago the FY2016/17 CTOL schedule was 80/80 and now it's 50/70. Throw in the slowdown in B/C and there are even more slots.

 

[FirstSpear]

Do you know if Japan requires an anti-ship missile capability for this new aircraft and if so, what system Eurofighter is proposing to cover this capability?

Actually, it's interesting you picked up on that because years ago, at the Bourget airshow, I was whisked in with two colleagues to watch a demo of the simulator for the Typhoon and we were shown the air to ground strike mode which was coming online and one of the 'future' developments we were given a sneak peek at was an anti-ship mode. At the time, I assumed (in error) that this had been at the request of the German fleet air arm which still was using Tornados.

I asked a few questions about this mode because it seemed essential to me if they were ever going to develop a naval version of the platform. the test pilot showing us the various functionalities was RAF and kind of blew it off but a Spanish person (don't know their role if any in the program) was quite adamant that this (the anti-ship) role was needed in the long term.

I am only mentioning this because it seems to me that, having heard of Eurofighter's recent offer to the Indians for a naval version, it would be reasonable to think that they may have picked up where they left off years ago.

I have not seen anything to suggest funding was ever approved for this so one has to wonder if it got financed, was it a corporate 'house project' --I doubt it because the market would seem fairly narrow. It would be, however, very much in the interest of the manufacturers of the anti-ship munitions to have a greater market to sell to.

What do you think?

 

[fretburner]

LM seems very transparent about its intentions. Presumably all partners are in the loop and have signed off on the move. Also, its an assembly line for components and modules manufactured elsewhere so it looks like any revenues lost would be coming out of LM's slice of the pie.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/avi-wire-news-display/1446128337.html

Am I reading the article you posted correctly?

Still, the assessment of the F-35 with Block 3 will unlikely be completed before 2017, according to the Department of Defense.

Since Japan is not involved in the international F-35 development project, it is difficult for the country to launch licensed production of the fighter.

Japan is looking for a fighter model to succeed the Air SDF's aging F-4 fighters. Besides the F-35, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, developed by U.S. aerospace and defense giant Boeing Co., is another candidate. Licensed production of the Super Hornet is possible in Japan.

 

[SpudmanWP]

OT&E for Block3 should begin in 2015 (which means that Blk3 is complete) and IOC in 2016. This meas that all deliveries of F-35s after 2015 will have Blk3.

 

[colay]

Am I reading the article you posted correctly?

Still, the assessment of the F-35 with Block 3 will unlikely be completed before 2017, according to the Department of Defense.

Since Japan is not involved in the international F-35 development project, it is difficult for the country to launch licensed production of the fighter.

Japan is looking for a fighter model to succeed the Air SDF's aging F-4 fighters. Besides the F-35, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, developed by U.S. aerospace and and defense giant Boeing Co., is another candidate.
Lic http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/avi-wire-news-display/1446128337.html ensed production of the Super Hornet is possible in Japan.

I believe the point being made is that Japan is being offered the capabilty to assemble finished components built by subcontractors in countries of the other partner countries i.e. Japan won't be eating into any of theirproduction quotas. If anything, a Japanese order will mean additional business for these external companies .
As for the SH being licensed in Japan, this isn't far-fetched as I believe Boeing made the same offer to India.
Re 2017, that's when the Blk3 assessment is expected to be completed; any F35s delivered in 2016 will be to that standard as SpudmanWP had noted.

 

[ADMk2]

Actually, it's interesting you picked up on that because years ago, at the Bourget airshow, I was whisked in with two colleagues to watch a demo of the simulator for the Typhoon and we were shown the air to ground strike mode which was coming online and one of the 'future' developments we were given a sneak peek at was an anti-ship mode. At the time, I assumed (in error) that this had been at the request of the German fleet air arm which still was using Tornados.

I asked a few questions about this mode because it seemed essential to me if they were ever going to develop a naval version of the platform. the test pilot showing us the various functionalities was RAF and kind of blew it off but a Spanish person (don't know their role if any in the program) was quite adamant that this (the anti-ship) role was needed in the long term.

I am only mentioning this because it seems to me that, having heard of Eurofighter's recent offer to the Indians for a naval version, it would be reasonable to think that they may have picked up where they left off years ago.

I have not seen anything to suggest funding was ever approved for this so one has to wonder if it got financed, was it a corporate 'house project' --I doubt it because the market would seem fairly narrow. It would be, however, very much in the interest of the manufacturers of the anti-ship munitions to have a greater market to sell to.

What do you think?

Well it may not be a priority for any of the Eurofighter partner nations but it certainly is for nations in the Asia Pacific region, so if they're marketing the Typhoon without a viable maritime strike capability, well that might partially explain the results they've had so far in that region...

 

[fretburner]

I believe the point being made is that Japan is being offered the capabilty to assemble finished components built by subcontractors in countries of the other partner countries i.e. Japan won't be eating into any of theirproduction quotas. If anything, a Japanese order will mean additional business for these external companies .

Sure. But wouldn't partner nations be mad if the Japan gets the business first before them? Even if it's for the Japanese F-35s only.

As for the SH being licensed in Japan, this isn't far-fetched as I believe Boeing made the same offer to India.

Yes, because Boeing doesn't have partner nations to worry about

Re 2017, that's when the Blk3 assessment is expected to be completed; any F35s delivered in 2016 will be to that standard as SpudmanWP had noted.

If there are no delyas for the Blk3 software

 

[SpudmanWP]

Deals with the partnership only cover partner-related sales. FMS sales (and their associated offsets) are not covered under the partnership.

 

[Kalasag]

Can we put the F-35 discussion to bed, please? Japan would be far back in the production queue, and it can't wait to replace the F-4s.

It's a straight fight between the Super Hornet and Typhoon. And of course I would say that the Typhoon should win.

The Tranche IIIs aren't even expected to be ready by 2015, the current fighters don't have AESA radar, helmet-mounted displays and don't have full compatibility with the American weapon systems and avionics they operate, all those reasons just pretty much tip of the iceberg. Japan would most likely have to jack up the Typhoon to have more compatibility with their systems or buy stockpiles of European armaments.

I understand your affinity for the Typhoon especially if the Japanese pump the fighter up with more tech, but the thing is that the SH would most likely be the favorite should Japan have to choose.

 

[Marc 1]

Take note that I said F-35C. None of us can say for sure now how the V/STOL F-35 operates right now that it hasn't gone out but I have enough faith that a maximum of least 3 F-35s would fit on the deck of a carrier expected to have a tonnage above 25000t. Of course I'm not saying the Japanese plan to build a dedicated fighter carrier, but if they buy F-35s, I would expect their carriers to be flexible enough to handle a few F-35s, like lets say in an event of an emergency, etc. Plus it wouldn't be like they would be fitting electromagnetic catapults or anything.

Klasag, you do realise the VTOL F35 is the B version don't you? The C version is the USN carrier variant with the extended wingspan.

 

[colay]

Yes, thank you. I was mistaken thinking the A and B versions for the single and double seat CTOL versions.

There's no 2-seat JSF version. The B designation is the STOVL jet and not a 2-seat version of the A CTOL jet.

 

[FirstSpear]

Well it may not be a priority for any of the Eurofighter partner nations but it certainly is for nations in the Asia Pacific region, so if they're marketing the Typhoon without a viable maritime strike capability, well that might partially explain the results they've had so far in that region...

Agreed, particularly since I understand there is a full on push to sell into Japan. Disappointingly, I don't think the same was done with Australia, probably because the FA18A/B fleet made the SH rather a shoe-in. Again, I don't think the navalized version offered to India makes any sense without the AS capability.

 

[fretburner]

What's the Japanese attitude towards risk? I think that will determine their choice.

 

[FirstSpear]

What's the Japanese attitude towards risk? I think that will determine their choice.

I see what you mean but I wonder if the typhoon's availability (without 'black boxes') isn't actually a better fit; after all the Japanese have a very consistent history of duplicating (despite the huge added cost) production capability locally, even for clearly uneconomic production runs to meet their long term goal of maintaining national military industrial base.

Good for them, if the can continue to afford it --not self-evident, IMHO.

 

[Todjaeger]

Take note that I said F-35C. None of us can say for sure now how the V/STOL F-35 operates right now that it hasn't gone out but I have enough faith that a maximum of least 3 F-35s would fit on the deck of a carrier expected to have a tonnage above 25000t. Of course I'm not saying the Japanese plan to build a dedicated fighter carrier, but if they buy F-35s, I would expect their carriers to be flexible enough to handle a few F-35s, like lets say in an event of an emergency, etc. Plus it wouldn't be like they would be fitting electromagnetic catapults or anything.

In order to safely operate F-35B's from a ship, there are a number of design requirements or modifications which would need to be made. Something which IMO should not be automatically assumed even with a vessel of 25,000 tons.

The first is whether or not there would be sufficient clearance around the aircraft for takeoff and landing. Given the ship would likely be carrying some helos, the clearance issues are likely to relatively minor. What are not likely to be minor issues are whether or not the deck can handle to weight of an F-35B and/or the heat from the engine. With respect to weight, the empty weight of an F-35 is ~13,000 kg, which is ~5,000 kg more than the loaded weight of an SH-60/S-70B Seahawk(~8,000 kg), a loaded F-35 is ~22,000 kg, and a fully-loaded one is ~31,000 kg. Unless the deck is designed to handle that sort of weight, or modified to handle the weight (with the significant amount of weight and structure dedicated to do so) the an F-35 would cause the deck to collapse, likely destroying the F-35B in the process as well as causing serious/mission-kill damage to the vessel. Similarly, the deck needs to be able to handle the heat put out by the engine on (vertical) takeoff and landing, otherwise there could be simiar issues to having a deck not rated for that level of weight.

Then there is also the little matter of how many F-35B's a carrier needs to be able to operate to provide a useful capability, what they need to be able to carry in terms of stores, and sortie generation rates.

Basically, unless the vessel is designed from the outset to operate jet fighters like the F-35B, it might be possible to modify it to do so, but it also might not make any sense to do so.

-Cheers

 

[Media Buff]

Typhoon?

Defense Ministry received bids from Boeing Co. for the F/A-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin Corp. for the F-35, and Eurofighter for the Typhoon. The latter comes partnered with Sumitomo Corp. Does that have any bearing politically in Japan?

 

[Kalasag]

In order to safely operate F-35B's from a ship, there are a number of design requirements or modifications which would need to be made. Something which IMO should not be automatically assumed even with a vessel of 25,000 tons.

The first is whether or not there would be sufficient clearance around the aircraft for takeoff and landing. Given the ship would likely be carrying some helos, the clearance issues are likely to relatively minor. What are not likely to be minor issues are whether or not the deck can handle to weight of an F-35B and/or the heat from the engine. With respect to weight, the empty weight of an F-35 is ~13,000 kg, which is ~5,000 kg more than the loaded weight of an SH-60/S-70B Seahawk(~8,000 kg), a loaded F-35 is ~22,000 kg, and a fully-loaded one is ~31,000 kg. Unless the deck is designed to handle that sort of weight, or modified to handle the weight (with the significant amount of weight and structure dedicated to do so) the an F-35 would cause the deck to collapse, likely destroying the F-35B in the process as well as causing serious/mission-kill damage to the vessel. Similarly, the deck needs to be able to handle the heat put out by the engine on (vertical) takeoff and landing, otherwise there could be simiar issues to having a deck not rated for that level of weight.

Then there is also the little matter of how many F-35B's a carrier needs to be able to operate to provide a useful capability, what they need to be able to carry in terms of stores, and sortie generation rates.

Basically, unless the vessel is designed from the outset to operate jet fighters like the F-35B, it might be possible to modify it to do so, but it also might not make any sense to do so.

-Cheers

Not stating facts or anything here. It's just that the new 'helicopter destroyers' aren't finished yet. Considering these carriers would be bigger than a light aircraft carrier, I'm only speculating they would be built to carry F-35Bs. I surely don't know what they plan on doing with the final product. Also, building it as a dedicated fixed-wing carrier would elicit unpleasant responses from China.